Share this:

Blizzard are swapping out an “over-the-shoulder” victory pose for their Overwatch [official site] character, Tracer. Put like that it sounds like a standard art tweak as part of a game’s closed beta process but the move ended up causing a brouhaha because of how it ties into conversations about female representation and the use of sexiness in gaming.

The decision to remove the “over-the-shoulder” pose was announced by game director Jeff Kaplan as part of a forum feedback thread on whether the pose was appropriate to the chipper time-shifting hero and then further clarified after a backlash. In the original post the author, Fipps, praised Overwatch’s female characters but noted that the Tracer pose “just reduces Tracer to another bland female sex symbol.”

The point they were making was that they didn’t think the backwards-glance-and-butt combo was in keeping with the character, striking a sexy rather than playful tone. In a later post they add: “a butt shot for Tracer doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, and undermines a lot of the great work the team is doing across the board.”

Picking through the thread there’s agreement and disagreement about whether the pose is out of character (some found it jarring, some never gave it a second thought) and whether players read it as sexy or not. I have played a lot of Overwatch but I realised I don’t play Tracer* so I’ve never really focused on her and don’t remember encountering that particular pose in the game – you can see for the header image I don’t even have it unlocked on my account.

We’ll replace the pose. We want *everyone* to feel strong and heroic in our community. The last thing we want to do is make someone feel uncomfortable, under-appreciated or misrepresented.

Apologies and we’ll continue to try to do better.

The subsequent backlash (although you won’t find that on the forum as the thread was temporarily locked after Kaplan’s post) led to a clarification being issued. Kaplan makes it clear that the Overwatch team at Blizzard already “weren’t entirely happy” with the pose and that, while the feedback offered on the forum helped them make the decision to swap it out, it wasn’t the sole factor. “We actually already have an alternate pose that we love and we feel speaks more to the character of Tracer.”

He adds:

We wouldn’t do anything to sacrifice our creative vision for Overwatch, and we’re not going to remove something solely because someone may take issue with it. Our goal isn’t to water down or homogenize the world, or the diverse cast of heroes we’ve built within it. We have poured so much of our heart and souls into this game that it would be a travesty for us to do so.

We understand that not everyone will agree with our decision, and that’s okay. That’s what these kinds of public tests are for. This wasn’t pandering or caving, though. This was the right call from our perspective, and we think the game will be just as fun the next time you play it.

If it isn’t, feel free to continue sharing your concerns, thoughts, and feedback about this and other issues you may have with the game, please just keep the discussion respectful.

*I’m currently on a Mercy kick, if you’re interested. She’s a medic character so I fly about, healing allies and boosting their damage. Zarya is my second favourite. She’s a hench Russian soldier (her lore puts her as a former weightlifter and bodybuilder) who wields a massive particle cannon.

Yea sure, keep telling yourself that.
It is not that nearly everyone that played it sings nothing but praise over it or something, oh wait.
If anything, if it would have been from a small developer the praise would be even higher.

Of the people I’ve seen streaming it, maybe a third I’ve heard say the game got boring, and most of the rest aren’t playing it anymore. That’s just their opinions though, I’m still looking forward to trying it.

You did claim that nearly everyone who played it thought it was great. You couldn’t know that without canvassing the opinions of thousand of people.

“It is not that nearly every blizzard fanboy that played it sings nothing but praise over it or something, oh wait.”

ftfy

Most of the people playing at the moment are either blizzard diehard fans who buy and praise every single thing that blizzard sells, the people I know irl that praise the game are the ones that go to blizzcon, have every blizz collectible they can get their hands on, have every single pet and synergy across their blizz games, etc. So their opinion is biased.

It looks like an ok game, with pretty graphics which is what blizzard is good at, but it is by no means as HUGE as you claim it to be.

But it IS hypocritical. They say they change it so that _everyone_ can “feel strong”. They change it because it did not appeal to a certain part of the community. They don’t seem to care however if this change now offends other parts. Clearly they only want to use it to improve their standing with a certain fraction of the community, not with the community as a whole. And that is why it’s hypocritical, very much so.

Instead of accusing someone of not understanding the meaning of some words you don’t want to see in a comment, you may want to try bringing forth some arguments with actual substance next time.

I really don’t think you have the mental capacity to understand the argument in the post you replied to, so allow me to introduce my own. Watch this video:link to youtube.com

Then take a look at the other poses for male characters in the game as well as the physical appearances that sexualize them (six pack abs, bodybuilder-esque musculature, etc.) and tell me you don’t see this pose removal as hypocritical.

Using a straw-man argument to cut people off at the knees like calling them “sexist” when they disagree completely justifiably with something they don’t like or don’t see as fair is not a valid argument.

Newsflash: encase you didn’t know, men like to look at the female figure if they find it attractive. What is so goddamn wrong with this? Studies have shown that the current generation, one that was brought up on these kinds games, are less violent and substantially less sexist than any other generation of all time. Video-games are about experiencing a make-believe world, one where you can escape the binds of life and let loose all the emotions that ail you in a completely safe way.

Men aren’t sexist because they like to look at certain physical features of nonexistent cyber personas, nor are they sexist for finding this change to the game hypocritical. Men are humans, women are humans, we all have desires, we all have our sexual preferences. These games are not the root of the worlds sexism problem, if anything they are providing a completely healthy outlet where any gamer, regardless of gender, race, etc., can enjoy a make-believe experience.

Thing is, the whole argument that (heterosexual) men like looking at women is fine! It’s absolutely fine. Adults spend a significant part of time with sharing their genitals and all that jazz, which is also absolutely fine.

However, it’s not like every character design ever should revolve around that, and before you bring up muscularness, the point of muscular character design is to show off strength, not sexiness persé. Although many people do find strength sexy, it’s not sexy for the sake of sexy. Strength has utility, and muscular strength does not neccisarely reflect the attitudes of the character. A pose, on the other hand, has very little utility and entirely reflects the attitudes of a character, because body language!

So blizzard changed her body language as they did not want this character to be sexy for the sake of sexy, which is also completely fine! As much as humans devote significant parts of their time to fucking around there is also plenty of time where they don’t. The thing is, all what has really changed is that a character by default said one thing and now says a different thing. This does not impede on your desires to look at bums, just that this particular character no longer has body langauge that is aimed specifically at people who like looking at women’s bums. This is also fine.

Games are about escapism, but why should they specifically be escapism for you? There’s plenty of people who are sick and tired of being approached or stared at by people who value their bums over any other aspect of who they are. And as a game designer, I would value the opinions of people who are getting a bit tired that arseholes seem to be very interested in their arseholes more then the people who are interested in looking at arseholes: The latter group is already being catered to by the entire porn industry, so a change that caters to the former group does not affect them (just as a change that caters to the latter group does not actually affect the latter group as there’s already so many bummers in the world).

Musculature in males is always going to be sexual because it sends the message that the person with such a physique is quite strong, this makes the muscular male appear as good breeding stock. This is akin to the way bigger boobs and well shaped figures (heart shaped arses, hourglass figures) denote healthy genetics and good child rearing capabilities. This is a link to a picture of one of the strongest men in the world in 2014:link to cdn-maf2.heartyhosting.com

He has a beer belly. I’m relatively fit and active myself (not at all intending to sound like a douche here), some might even consider my physique to be more appealing than his, but in no way does that mean I am stronger than he is. This guy could pound me and any other lean/fit guy I know into the dirt. If Blizzard wanted to send a message of strength embodied in individual characters they could have done this by showcasing impressive feats of the characters themselves without having them be ripped with perfect figures, this would still make sense, in fact it would make more sense. Males AND females are sexualized in this game. This is fact.

And as for reflecting personality through poses, I said this in another post and I’ll say it again here:

The message here is that if you are a bubbly, spunky, kind-hearted woman with good friends, you don’t get to be “sexy.” Doing something “sexy” is out of character for you and should be left for others who are more overtly sexual.
Here is a crazy idea, people are inherently complex. They cannot be summed up by a bullet point list of 5 characteristics. Saying that this pose is uncharacteristic of Tracer is to say that certain attributes should be left to certain types of people and all others need not apply.

Tracer is a representation of a person. Real people have desires and needs and complex personalities. If a person has an attractive physique they are going to flaunt it in some way at some point in their life, that’s just human nature, it’s not amoral, it’s not something that should be decried, it is a COMPLETELY HARMLESS expression of humanity. Tracer is already considered inherently sexy whether she poses a certain way or not, she is a strong, multi-sided individual who deserves to have every aspect of her character expressed. Strong women are still capable of wanting to be sexy. Strong women can still have sex and retain their strength of character. They are not defined by their sexy side alone (neither is Tracer), gamers and decent human beings alike understand this. The pose did not change her strength or her character at all. Looking back at someone/something over your goddamn shoulder is not akin to whoring yourself. It’s a playful expression that is only made sexual by Tracer’s idyllic figure.

Feminism is about females not being judged on ANY aspect of their character solely based on the fact that they are female. Strong women and female characters should not have to conform to a rigid guideline on how to act to maintain integrity in the eyes of “feminists” and people who decry sexual expression as an expression of patriarchal subjugation.

Why does observing the beauty of the human figure bother anyone? Overwatch is certainly not overtly sexual and it certainly does not promote the mistreatment/objectification of women despite what some misguided souls may think. Why should we have to scale our characters, our brain-children down to asexual robots to appease the ridiculous notion that being sexy makes you weak. Being sexual, all in all, contributes to badassery. It’s a character aspect that makes the character inherently more interesting while reinforcing their humanity (when combined with other character aspects of course).

I was with you in the first two paragraphs (okay not entirely, but this comment thread is too long anyhow).
The paragraphs after that, however, dive more and more into the territory that makes this issue needlessly controversial: You assume a lot of ulterior motives behind what is, ultimately, a very small change, as if the game’s views on all women hinged on a change made midway trough development – a change which the devs already felt was for the better to begin with! In your own words: “Tracer is already considered inherently sexy whether she poses a certain way or not, she is a strong, multi-sided individual who deserves to have every aspect of her character expressed.” – That is, actually, exactly what is happening here! The devs, after all, are the ones who are fully aware of what her character is, and they are making a tweak that they feel expresses her character better. You make very clear that you have objections with certain views on sexyness in these media but you also make very clear that the pose does not affect her sexyness. If the pose does not affect her sexyness, a change in pose should not be an issue.

I hate to admit it, cause I’m an a-hole, but you’re right, that was a logical fallacy on my part. If she is already sexy than why should the pose removal change anything? Allow me to answer that as best as possible: I think that the pose better reflects and expands on an aspect to her character that makes her seem more human to me. Contrary to what others believe, it’s pretty empowering to be able to act sexy like that nowadays. Decades ago, a woman acting sexual was a huge taboo. Being able to portray characters like that in media is a good indication that society has evolved for the better since those times.

I don’t want to pretend to know what the devs actually want for her (none of us do), I just wanted to defend something I didn’t think was so deserving of the axe. People really got on the devs about this, but I never considered it to be a problem worthy of public outcry which is why my argument kinda tangents at points.

Hmm, when I read this comment section I get a sense that there’s a far bigger reaction to the change then the original thing.

But more importantly: we don’t actually know what the replacement is! It’s not being axed in the traditional sense, it’s being improved upon, so we can’t really make a good judgement on whether or not it deserves being axed yet.

I think more than anything, the pose represents her quirkiness as well as her playful nature. While it may have the side affect of sexualizing her in the eyes of some when they focus on her “assets”, I really don’t think it’s that big of deal. Sexy male characters flaunt what they got in lots of games (including Overwatch), tattoos, tank tops, tight fitting clothing, etc. Why is it so outrageous when female characters do the same thing? Isn’t the point of Feminism equal opportunity and equal empowerment? Shouldn’t women be able to act how they want to act without being considered weak or weaker for doing so? How could the pose not be representative of her personality? Everyone on this goddamn planet has looked back at someone or something over their shoulder. Making this action a pose simply should not be such an outrage to so many people. Being playful is part of her personality, she was being playful in the pose (I think it’s more than likely that it was never intended to be considered so sexual), it represents her personality and does absolutely nothing to weaken her or destroy her as a strong feminine figure.

This is a perfect example of why this game holds zero interest for me. It’s like getting into an argument over wonder bread adding a little more fibre to their formula – it’s boring, mainstream and not actual fun. It’s pretty clear they’re aiming for TF2 but are getting Pokemon Adventures. Blech.

Spray on trousers would be marginally more welcome than the current real world trend of ”elastic jeans” that sag around the arse and crotch, hug the knees and ankles like a sexually frustrated sloth, and crease all along the leg.

Yeah; see also any tight spandex superhero[ine] costume, which these guys basically are. Her legs are stick-pin thin, but that’s cartoon stylization for you, it emphasises traits beyond realism. TF2’s scout is a noodle too, he just wears baggier pants.

So of all the unbelievable fictional components of this game, for example let’s say GORILLA…A GORILLA, running and gunning as a character for example, the one thing you and everyone else is upset about are the pants that Tracer is wearing????????????? What should she be wearing? Dreadlocks, a Bernie Sanders Shirt, Clear Lens Ray Bans and a I <3 Portland Oregon shirt? I mean come on get real. What is the better alternative here? Give her baggy jeans, business khakis, and turn her pose into a two thumbs up hand signal greeting??? I'm also pretty sure Pharah embodies the macho female just fine, but because of all these complainers and whiners, Tracer has to be changed too? What about Zarya??? Is she too much of a sexy stereotypical interpretation of the female gender? What with her big muscles and butch haircut? Get real people. If you don't want to play the "sexy" character like Tracer with her pose,outfit, simply don't play her. Whining over design choices is exactly why triple AAA companies produce garabge in the first place is by trying to appease everyone.

Curious, you seem to be the one doing the most whining here, getting all up in arms about a complete non-issue. A player pointed out a minor questionable design choice, the developers agreed and changed it, and the only reason we’re still talking about this is because people like you are howling about those mean social justice warriors infringing on your god-given right to look at digital butts.

The point is it’s an absurd thing to do, it’s a short-lived pose. You can’t please everyone in a game and changing a pose because it offended some people is just dumb. Now if she was dry humping her gun or hopping up and down making her boobs bounce, or twerking, it would be a different issue. Of all the different design choices they’ve made the whole “feminist” poor developer stereotypical thing keeps coming back up. What’s the alternative? Give them all loose fitting jeans, or unisex army plate armor and lose all sense of creativity with the project? This has nothing to do with starring at butts in a video game, but apparently that’s the first thing coming to your mind. Blizzard obviously has tried to cater to other audiences with their other female characters, and to cry over tracer’s pose is just dumb in my opinion.

Penguin: I’m well aware that people can go overboard with political correctness, but the point is that this is not an example of that. Everyone involved in this acted in a civil and reasonable manner, and an incredibly minor change was made to the game, until someone decided it was all part of a grand conspiracy of censorship and suffocating political correctness and the tirades started.

All those people going “It’s just a pose!”–right, it’s completely inconsequential, so why do you care so much?

Fair play to Blizzard really. If they don’t think it fits the character but are happy for others to ‘vamp it up’ a bit surely that’s the best approach for all concerned? Also the pose itself looks quite weird and ‘red carpet’.

To be honest, I think it’s well past time that developers were producing real variety in game avatars, representing all sorts of character both realistic and fantastical. Heroes can and should come in all shapes, sizes, colours, orientations, and personalities.

I mean this not just from an inclusiveness standpoint but also a creative one. I can’t adequately describe how tired and bored I am, after 25 odd years of gaming, of the same handful of character archetypes over and over again.

Point & Click adventure games get an honourable mention for doing this as the norm for as long as I can remember.

Honestly if Blizzard didn’t want to turn their female characters into a bunch of sex symbols… they shouldn’t have put so many of them in skintight jumpsuits. Like seriously, this is what people should be complaining about. The pose wouldn’t matter if the characters were wearing reasonable clothing and not just latex. As long as Blizzard (and game artists in general) continue designing characters like this, they deserve every bit of backlash they get.

The Division wins for true representation of women. Equal to and indistinguishable from the men, even after they shoot you.

As for more diverse representations, I’ll settle for believable. If my avatar is running about the place, climbing and shooting things, I’d expect them to be athletic at the very least. Not someone who’s likely to have a heart attack 5 mins in. That goes for the opposite too – if my female character is lugging 40lb rucksack everywhere, she better be ripped, not big-busted and stick thin.

I’d refer to the as internal consistency and certainly agree. I’d say, though, that it’s a two way street. You want your characters to be believably enduring the scenario described. But the scenario described could reasonably be informed by the character choice too.

I don’t mind cartoons, though. I quite like them. The question is: does the cartoon logic also have it’s own sort of admittedly exaggerated internal consistency? Overwatch following The Division’s same principle of gender equivalence and internal consistency wouldn’t look like the Division. Characters would still be inhuman and cartooned, there just wouldn’t be quite so obviously a dividing line between the male and female casts in terms of allowed variations in body proportions.

Some have pointed out that Overwatch is actually better about it than a lot of games but that’s more depressing than a point in Overwatch’s favor. What I find especially confusing is that Tracer’s behavior and other poses hammer home a look-at-me-I’m-cool/sexy/whatever attitude. The pose is weirdly stiff and undynamic but if presenting oneself too sexually is the problem that pose isn’t the only one that needs to go.

These discussions always get a little weird becasue of that sort of thing. One person’s problem is realism, the next person’s is sexuality, the next person’s is every-penny-counts media representation. But the end result is a bit of a mess. Division isn’t so much an example of how to do things correctly as an example of how to avoid doing them incorrectly. It’s not the only way to do it right, it’s just a foolproof way to not do it wrong. Characters are available with a variety of facial features and skin tones, and there’s no real in-game differentiation between the male and female presenting characters except their facial structures, voices, and vague body types which are subject to undifferentiated dress code.

One thing I will give Division credit for is how normal its characters look. There’s a pleasingly human quality to them that is missing in so many games and, for that matter, movies. They look a lot more like people than idealized statues of people. I respect that.

The question, though, is what happens when our characters aren’t supposed to be your-next-door-neighbor-with-a-gun? Sure, a lot of games should absolutely take The Division’s approach. But for games where that is not a meaningful option, how do you avoid problems? The best answer I can come up with is to have a diverse design crew and to listen as best you can to your audience. The problem is that your audience is full of people who act insane, however well meaning they might be outside of forums and blogs and twitter feeds about your game. People who will champion social equality with one hand and demean anything remotely sexual with the other and, more commonly, people who support shitty standards that have their roots in broader inequities and ignorances. The biggest trouble here is that no one has room to breath–not the gentler audience, not the developer. Every mistake is part of someone’s view The Problem. The big one. The one that the balance of our lives hinge on. And no one can make the right call in that kind of environment, not even someone who wants to listen and wants to foster a good, supportive community.

I like variety, but I really do love sexy boob armor RPG women. Based on all the writing and comments on this topic over the last year I guess I’m not supposed to. Doesn’t change the fact that overly sexy magic wielding female badass characters are what I play all the time every time that I can.

Seems like a good decision- that vibe from that Tracer preview video doesn’t really fit with the butt-pose. Not every female character needs to be a T&A fest.

I wish I was more interested in the actual game. I’m loving the aesthetic and character designs, and I really dig the idea of an optimistic new super-hero team with a moon-Ape scientist. But a plot-free online shooter where these ostensible team-mates are all shooting at each other- and indeed at clones of themselves- doesn’t feel like a good way to explore that world.

The issue is that women have the T in the front and the A in the back. So, objectively, any pose would show at least something, and the offense – real or pretend – is largely subjective. I’d even say that treating a pose like this as sexual and removing it is doing more to sexualize the female character than leaving it in.

“The issue is that women have the T in the front and the A in the back”

Except, somehow, women character often end up in poses that show both.

Granted, that’s not the case here, but that does not mean it’s not a “sexual” pose.
Framing if important. It’s where the image focus and character pose draw attention to that determines if a image is sexualized or not. It’s entirely possible to have a fully naked character to NOT be sexualized just by the way it’s framed.

I don’t see this at all. There’s not even a hint of pin-up-like posing meant to draw attention to specific body parts. If the butt draws attention, it’s because of the clothes and because it’s a big and prominent body part. And I personally think the image emphasizes the legs.

I’ll admit to the flippant dismissal. Sorry. I just don’t understand why one would bother putting that out there – given that the Tracer pose doesn’t qualify – unless one wants to needlessly tie this into some wider controversy about TnA shots. It feels like an attempt to bolster a smaller argument.

Since Tracer is not contorting her body to “show me everything” and is merely standing with her backside facing the camera, I think the sexual content of the pose is debatable and subjective. Yes, I can see how it’s alluring, but IMO that has little to do with the pose itself and more to do with Tracer’s design on the whole (which you’d think would be the bigger fucking problem here).

Do the guys have their arses sticking out and have vacuum pipes running on full-blast stuck up their asses? If so then fair play, it’s a terrible art direction problem – but I have a suspicion the male ‘from behind poses’ don’t quite have the same vibe. Happy to be proved wrong.

I see your logic but I’d suggest it’s quite dispassionate. Surely all offence is subjective. Does that mean you should never be concerned about offending others? Just like in other aspects of life, we must consider others using social cues, common sense and our own moral compass to determine our actions

“I’d even say that treating a pose like this as sexual and removing it is doing more to sexualize the female character than leaving it in.”

No, see, that’s disingenuous nonsense. You can’t say that because women have a front and a back, so whichever way you look at them, you’re going to be forced – compelled! – to see sexy parts…and then claim that the people objecting to the gratuitous sexualisation of said universal body parts are the real culprits here. That’s no different from saying that male characters are either going to be showing off their arse or cock, unavoidably. And nobody suggests that is the case, except to be disingenuously nonsensical.

Women typically have breasts and buttocks. That’s a function of biology and existing in more than two dimensions. Women’s bodies are not inherently titillating, and presenting them as such is a concious choice. A choice that the developers opted not to proceed with, during a beta test. If you think that’s censorship, or caving to a ravenous SJW mob, or depriving you of your freedom to look at harmless bottoms, you don’t understand what any of those words mean. Especially seeing as this is the internet, and you are literally keystrokes away from more backside that you could ever hope to catalogue. If people are so desperate to see arses that they can’t even wait to alt-tab out of a victory screen, I’d suggest they have more basic personal problems to resolve before tackling the complex issue of gender relations as expressed through interactive art.

I have a problem with the way that Blizzard describes Tracer, to be perfectly honest.

She’s Fast.
She’s Silly.
She’s Kind.
She’s a good Friend.
Her body seems to be comprised of about 95% spunk.

Then Blizzard goes on to say that this “sexy” pose is out of character. The message here is that if you are a bubbly, spunky, kind-hearted woman with good friends, you don’t get to be “sexy.” Doing something “sexy” is out of character for you and should be left for others who are more overtly sexual.
Here is a crazy idea, people are inherently complex. They cannot be summed up by a bullet point list of 5 characteristics. Saying that this pose is uncharacteristic of Tracer is to say that certain attributes should be left to certain types of people and all others need not apply.

You can pose however you want. The fact they are changing this not because of their own internal creative ideas but to please an external force is not very reassuring about the world we live in today. But they can make a character pose however they want. I don’t care either way, but people not having the conviction to believe in their development teams ideas and cave to this stuff over and over again just keeps feeding these sorts of things to nitpick over every little tiny detail, which is disingenuous to the reality of the world we live in. But honestly I wouldn’t even have noticed whether this was in the game or not.

Every single commercial videogame ever makes concessions to the audience. Up until recent years, nobody was ever party to the changes, the differences and whatever else. Focus groups, internal testing, inviting people in to play the game, taking the game out to shows… all stuff that feedback would be between person and developer. All that’s changed now is that there’s a modicum of public discussion on matters due to the more ‘open’ nature of development.

If it makes you fear for the modern age or whatever else, it’s entirely because you have no idea about how videogames are generally made at scale and not because the world’s going to crap.

Considering that you have conveniently ignored the bits where the devs mentioned that they weren’t themselves happy with the pose (The critique was more of a justification of what they already felt more then anything else), I … yes. Yes you can.

But they put it in the game that would’ve been through all their internal design reviews, QA/QC, & sign offs. So they were collectively happy with it, and are only now realising that they were unhappy with it. Anyway, I just think this shouldn’t be newsworthy regardless of what they chose to do.

Overwatch is in beta, which is a part of that Q&A process: The game is still going trough all those internal design processes, Q&As, and has not been signed off yet (because beta).

And I fully agree with you that this is not newsworthy! A ‘game is in beta, makes changes based on feedback’ is something that happens all the time and is not particularly interesting in and out of itself. But the news-item here is not about that design change – It’s that this design change, that should be completely uncontroversial, is still drawing a lot of controversy. As unfortunate as that is, it is still newsworthy.

“So they were collectively happy with it, and are only now realising that they were unhappy with it.”

This is one of the most fundamental misconceptions about game development. If you think a team (especially one at this kind of size) is “collectively happy” about *anything*, you should really take a step back and stop offering what amounts to uneducated guesses at people’s intentions.

It’s virtually guaranteed that a not insignificant subset of their team is genuinely unhappy about Tracer’s pose. Why?

1. It’s cliché. There’s always going to be at least someone pushing to avoid clichés.
2. There are people *outside* the team that are unhappy about it. You know the biggest thing that separates game developers from their players? Distance. It’s seemingly impossible for a lot of ‘gamers’ to understand that developers have varied and diverse opinions, just like everyone else. They’re not a monolith.*

And really, focus testing is practically meaningless compared to the audience you’ll see once a game is released publicly. Consumer feedback is likely to be a greater representation of your *actual* (not *target*) demographic. Importantly, it’s far more valuable because it can amplify the opinions of those on your team with a smaller voice, which will lead to a more unique, interesting end-product.

With people like you in the wild I wonder why they even bother issuing clarifications like the statement above. It doesn’t matter what they say, you’re going to complain regardless. Kaplan literally said:

“We weren’t entirely happy with the original pose, it was always one that we wrestled with creatively. That the pose had been called into question from an appropriateness standpoint by players in our community did help influence our decision—getting that kind of feedback is part of the reason we’re holding a closed beta test—but it wasn’t the only factor. We made the decision to go with a different pose in part because we shared some of the same concerns, but also because we wanted to create something better.”

You said it’s bad that they’re caving to external forces, but that you also don’t care. They explicitly said they aren’t caving to external forces, they made the decision as a creative team in light of the feedback and had already grappled with it anyway. So, uh… no.

Having a creative vision doesn’t mean rejecting good ideas when you recognize them. In fact stubbornly sticking to the original vision in the face of better ideas is a sign of an insecure or egotistical artist, and is the kind of thinking that got us Daikatana.

Can vouch for this. One of the first and most important things you learn as an artist is the ability to throw away all your work and concepts and start over, no matter how invested you were in them or how much work you put in them. Those who never develop as artists never truly grasp the importance of this, and see their work as too precious. Consequently in the face of constructive criticism they tend to lash out against the criticism instead of re-evaluating their work.

Absolutely. Seems like a lot of people have the same misconception of artistic integrity that they or others have of freedom of speech. Neither are a blanket excuse for being a dick, and neither permit you to live in a vacuum. Great art respects its audience, right?

Their mistake was actually talking about it. That just stirs up the apes. They should have quietly removed the pose — maybe listed the removal in the changelog with no reason given.

Sometimes the best way to avoid controversy is to act like there’s no controversy. Would anyone have noticed if Blizzard hadn’t mentioned it? By drawing attention to it, they’ve created another rallying point for the trogs who think Anita Sarkeesian is coming to make penises illegal. Aren’t we all tired of listening to these people?

It’s time to start normalizing greater consideration of female/minority representation. It doesn’t have to be a political statement. Mind you, sometimes you do have to take a stand. This just isn’t one of those times, as the change is so utterly minor.

One was to edit R. Mika’s super. R Mika’s super had her and her partner Nadeshiko perform a muscle buster-like move on the opponent, with each grabbing a leg. The edit made it so that, while the opponent’s legs are still spread, neither Nadeshiko nor Mika are actually holding the opponent’s legs in place. This edit seems the most like an over-reaction, as it makes the super looks much weaker. I can only guess that someone complained about the wrestling hold’s leg split being forced, because the edited version keeps the leg split and just removes the hands that held the legs in place.

The second was that R Mika’s butt slap was obscured, with a camera change and a graphical effect covering it. While the game wouldn’t really be negatively hurt by removing the animation (unlike the change to her super above), this edit was annoying because the original animation fit Mika’s character.

The third was to change the camera angle for Cammy’s intro. The original camera angle, dubbed the ‘crotch-cam’ by some, was nothing but gratuitous. It wasn’t more dramatic and added nothing to the character.

The difference being Mika and Cammy were being obviously objectified in sexually gratuitous way with poses and camera work that zoom right in on their thong covered lady bits. Tracer on the other hand is standing there innocuously like a plank with a camera angle that shows her from the back without any emphasis.

I agree to an extent – I don’t think they should just try and sneak these changes out under the radar for fear of stoking controversy. If they’re making changes to the game in response to feedback that should be announced and praised, it’s good, it’s what the beta is for. HOWEVER, the original announcement was worded in a way that invited controversy – specifically the part about how sorry they were, and how they’d try to do better. It transforms the message from “this is better for the game” to “the original version was offensive and that’s bad”. That’s the mistake, I think.

I’d love to agree with this but we’re a year and a half into this happening constantly and consistently now and it doesn’t matter how a change is phrased – there’s a frothing horde ready to jump on the slightest slight. Any action, no matter how well or how little signposted is a summons.

Definitely always worth clarifying as much as you can, not for the frothers but for those who actually genuinely do care about the reasons behind decisions made. For the frothers though, no odds.

Yeah, that’s the other thing I’ve noticed when it comes to geek media, apologizing for being offensive draws nearly as much hate as someone being offended. I’m reminded of a couple of incidents with Batgirl a while back, where a character that many viewed as transphobic upset a few readers, which stirred up the apes; the writer more or less said “it wasn’t intended as such but I apologize anyway” and the apes went even more apeshit. The other situation was a controversial alternate cover that recalled the infamous Killing Joke story where Joker crippled (and is implied to have raped) Batgirl; a lot of people were upset, the apes sent them death threats, the artist was taken aback by that and requested the cover not go to print, which made the apes even madder. (Nevermind that they’re the ones who got the cover pulled by sending people death threats.)

Basically you can’t win with people like this. It’s like they’ve taken being an asshole as a virtue. I’m really done with so-called cultural libertarianism.

An apology implies a wrongdoing. Even if you apologize for something you did unintentionally, you still imply that what you did was wrong – and when the issue is contentious, it can inflame the other side.

Not really: An apology is simply about acknowledging that someone who you did not want to affect negatively was affected negatively.

It’s why Canadian security guards apologize to people before reminding them that they are in violation of a certain policy (which is their job and not a wrongdoing). It’s not about bowing down to someone, but simply about recognizing that they exist.

Acknowledging that others may be offended by your actions others is just that: an acknowledgment (and there are indeed polite and compassionate ways to do so). Apologies should be reserved for when you dun actually fucked up. As well-meaning as it may be, I find the practice of apologizing to others simply for having their feathers ruffled is an unhealthy practice.

If you don’t think you’re being a dick – or if you know you aren’t being a dick – then what are you apologizing for? Why should you apologize for somebody else’s negative feelings if you’ve done no wrong? Am I a dick if I refuse to apologize in such cases?

Yes, this gets complicated when the person being an asshole isn’t aware they’re being an asshole. But in general, I want the apologies I receive to be sincere and with the comprehension of what they did wrong. I do not want people apologizing to me if they don’t actually mean it and are only doing so to soothe my irritation, because then it switches from being a legitimate apology to an emotional tactic.

Apologizing by default admittedly does smooth over some of the smaller cracks in life, but I think it’s something people have grown obsessed with when a simple “I hear your concerns” would do the trick. However, I’d wager that’s not as satisfying as having somebody get on their knees and ask for forgiveness.

So here’s the thing: My whole point revolves around that most people that act like assholes are not aware of themselves acting like assholes. When somebody points out that you are acting like an asshole, to me an apology is simply an acknowledgement that somebody has made that statement and that you will consider that statement in self-reflection. If you don’t think you’re being a dick it’s often a lot better to try to find out *why* people do think you are being a dick. If you are open to apologizing, you acknowledge the other person as legitimate and are thus far more likely to find out. I view this as neccesary because self-reflection is a very, very usefull trait that needs to be trained constantly. If you don’t think you are being a dick chances are you could be wrong.

I actually don’t have any strong objections to your post there. I think we’re seeing different ideas of what an apology should entail; whether that’s an acknowledgment of causing offense or an expressed regret over a personal wrongdoing. And I also agree that an apology can be a good smooth-over in order to have more constructive dialogue once we’re over the hump. Fair enough! But two things:

1) Even if you are only apologizing in the sense of “I acknowledge your offense”, there is enough cynicism in humanity to have that always interpreted as an admission of wrongdoing. Your reasons for providing an apology – in cases where you’ve committed no real foul – gives the impression otherwise and potentially validates whatever grievances (including small and stupid ones) the offended party may have. It is simply irritating in principle. Sometimes the person kicking up a fuss is being silly and their demands should not be satisfied any more than tantrum-throwing child. In fact, it seems there’s enough of that to go around for everybody these days…

2) I rather resent the idea that somebody needs to suck it up and say sorry just because the other party is incapable of dealing with the alternative; that one is actually not sorry and is perfectly okay with doing what they normally do kthx. I shouldn’t have to apologize in order to convince you that I think you have a legitimate POV, and I think the only reason this expectation exists is because somewhere along the way people have been thought to think this way. IMO this should be discouraged because it warps the concept of fair, legitimate disagreements when intellectual forfeiture is a mandated requirement as a starting point.

If it helps get a better sense of where I’m coming from, I can provide some personal examples where I feel an apology is warranted, and I guess tie it back to the topic at hand.

-Bump into somebody in the street when you weren’t looking? Apologize.
-Drop the word “fag” in conversation in the presence of a gay person? Apologize (unless that person DGAF in which case whatever).
Make a 3D model of an attractive lady with some assets? No apology.

There is quite simply nothing to apologize for, even if somebody is made uncomfortable by it! That may sound insensitive but I see no way of avoiding it. Now you can absolutely lend a sympathetic ear to any expressed concerns or criticism, and I fully recommend doing so. That is where opening yourself up to be a better person comes into play, not the feigning platitudes people deploy in order to defuse situations. But nobody should be apologizing for making a sexy butt.

I was ready to give a long answer, but I get into these arguments too often and don’t really feel like doing so right now.

But please, just consider that harm can be done in multiple ways. It doesn’t matter with what. Drawing a sexy butt can be really harmful, in the right context. I’m not saying this happens in this context, I REALLY don’t want to get into that. But please, consider that, if you are harming someone, you will not always realize so. You can slightly bump into someone in the street and harm them, while not harming some other person after a harder bump. The only way you have to know if you’ve harmed them is if they tell you. Consider the same for this issue. You don’t know if you are harming someone, so, while considering it and listening to them, just apologize. It’s just acting in good faith, instead of egotistically sticking to your perception of things.

Otherwise, it’s like bumping into someone and saying “I’m not going to apologize because it’s not my fault and don’t think I harmed you, and I’m not sorry whether I actually harmed you or not”.

I disagree. One of the most commonly aired mantras by the trogs (I like that word!) is that critique that is made from a social angle, or indeed anything that can be remotely considered as being the result of a socially progressive viewpoint, leads to devs being bullied into silence, or censored, or otherwise being forced to make changes against their will.

When I look at your proposal, I kinda see the opposite: Devs who are interested in socially progressive viewpoints being discouraged to explicitly mention this or acting upon this out of fear of offending the trogs. This never should be a thing.

Ultimately trogs are regressive. They don’t like that in modern society people make an effort to make each other happy, and to avoid upsetting each other.

In their minds this means banning words and having to run everything you say by a lawyer; and people being constantly offended by everything because they swear they read something on reddit about it last week.

However regular folks don’t spend all day insulting or exploiting people so it doesn’t provide much of a challenge in our lives. Seeing imagery like this just sends massive alarm bells off in my head that the art director has the mental age of a teenager or watches far too much porn (or maybe not enough?). It’s not that the progressives (love it when that’s used pejoratively, really hits it home) have to make an effort to avoid this imagery, they just wouldn’t create it (in this context) in the first place. Sex is sexy, but it has its place, and this clearly isn’t it. It doesn’t need censorship – it just needs better people working on it in the first place.

Thinking that sex has nothing to do in that kind of game (or in any game for that matter) is really a regressive and backwards idea. While I’ll always agree that the sexiness should be balanced for the sake of a diverse audience, a world in which naughtiness is restrained to some form of media or another is a sad world I don’t want to live in.

Damn that last paragraph was pretty judgmental. It is the exact kind of talk that sends people into an apoplexy. On one hand you talk up the virtue of not offending and not being judgmental, then you call the artist, who used a classic hero pose s/he made for a DLC on one of the characters, some sort of adolescent pervert who either jerks off too much or too little. Honestly I find your views on pornography quite offensive and upsetting, so I guess you have failed in your above stated mission for a better world.

This stuff keeps up you’ll have every form of art and media looking like 10 am network television.

The hypocrisy is amazing too, how often have we talked about being so suck of AAA productions being so bland, no originality, no vision, too designed by committee, and then the moment a company toes the line, well wait, no this wasn’t even anywhere near the line, the second they deviate from this bland “violence is cool but burn the human body” design it’s like damn open season on them.

Also for the record I think the change makes sense. I doubt they even thought that much about the pose besides the need of filling the quota of poses character’s can unlock before the release date. I bet they are working their asses off.

When they did stop and think about it, they said, oh, hrm, good point, let’s try something new. Pretty sure that is how it went down, and seems like good logic.

So many people fail to get this. If male characters were objectified the way female characters are, they’d largely be lithe and pretty-faced with their own vacuum-sealed pants showing off a nice package.

The majority of superhero comics handily demonstrate the difference between objectification and power fantasy–Male characters have skintight outfits that accentuate every single one of their enormous muscles, but are curiously vague in the groin area, while female characters seem to wear latex bodypaint that perfectly contours their boobs and butt.

Why would male objectification involve making them “lithe and pretty-faced”? How does that represent any differentiation? Both genders portrait skintight suits, with muscles on men pretty much as marked and mandatory as prominent boobs on women, and the groin area vagueness is the same for both. I don’t remember even seeing cameltoes. Similarly, I don’t remember ever seeing butt-less male superheroes. The accentuation coincides in physical attractiveness for both genders.

I would recognize the difference in several other media, such as the typical MMO which portrays men in cool armour and women in scarcely covering slutty outfits. I totally get that, but particularly in the superhero front? Not so much.

Men want to have big muscles to destroy everything and be the hero that solves problems because they think this will appease women. By the same logic this is also a female power fantasy. They are only acting in this way to appease women. The only reason little boys want to be the hero is to be loved by the women/men they are attracted too, or the fantasy of it.

It is a fallacy to say that no women like men with big muscles. Look at The Rock, he is a walking “male power fantasy” by this logic, but women hate this guy, or they only like him because they’ve been brainwashed by men into thinking that he is good looking and charismatic? This is the argument you are making?

A man wearing skin tight outfits with female features will appeal to some segments of men and women for sure, but this is in the minority. Most women are looking for a different type of man to be their fantasy. I can’t honestly believe that if you took 100 female artists and told them to draw their ideal man, it would be this soft lipped round faced person that I keep see coming up in this argument.

So again I don’t get it, what is this odd ass view that women don’t like this type of media? My wife loves martial arts films for the hot guys in it kicking ass. I love it for the hot women in it kicking ass and the hot guys kicking ass.

I consume media because I want to see something different that doesn’t look like my day to day life, and IP Man wrecking “10 Men at Once” pretty much fits the bill. Why the sudden backlash against this recently?

That was an example to point out that Batman is designed to look cool, not sexy. Catwoman is designed to look sexy, with cool as an afterthought.

Obviously everyone has a different definition of sexy, and everyone has a different idea about how to be a badass, but the creators and their target audience have THIS idea, and it’s an idea that dominates the mainstream, regardless of its negative effects.

Splendid multiplayer display of condescension without providing an ounce of substance. I have a genuine interest in knowing what’s the difference between the idealized portrayal of both genders, and all these patronising, self-indulging replies haven’t really been helpful.

Why is it readily assumed every single man wants to be a disproportioned, hulking, steroid-overdosed version of himself? Why is it readily assumed every single woman doesn’t want to be a similarly overblown version of herself? Why is “be Batman, fuck Catwoman” assumed to be true, but “be Catwoman, fuck Batman” not? Considering a heroine can be sexy, strong and independent instead of a sexualized damsel in distress, why must all these assumptions need separate definitions?

Because a worryingly large portion of geek media — video games, comic books, certain movies — is written by, and for, straight dudes, preferably in the 16-30 range, with the sexual maturity of a 13 year old.

I’m not sure if you were replying to me or dethtoll, TacticalNuclearPenguin, but I agree with you. But there might’ve been some confusion: what I meant with “similarly overblown” female version was one with similarly overblown gender physical traits. Not ripped and square like a comicbook male hero.

And dethtoll, I keep hearing that. I keep hearing that it’s all about the intent and the idea of the producers of such media. But does that really matter? If you look at many superhero/superheroine designs for what they are, they’re generally wearing the same kind of outfits and, as TNP said, have their defining gender features enhanced. No, don’t bring up bulges as the genital areas tend to be particularly modest no matter the gender, as I mentioned earlier.

Do you honestly think this change happened on the whim of a single random forum poster? Fans post all kinds of suggestions and changes, some more or less crackpot than this one. Clearly the difference is that this was a change the game director was already at least partly in agreement with. For all we know the change may already have been confirmed, and Jeff Kaplan simply chose to announce it in a thread already about the topic.

The art team doesn’t need anyone to “stand up” for them, this is not an attack on them. No one did anything wrong, no one’s job is on the line. Artists do mountains of work for the development of a game, and it gets rejected or altered all the time. It’s just part of the job.

Nobody is saying that a forum poster can change the fate of humanity, but it’s certainly true that the right dude at the right time can influence a certain PR move by a company that was just trying to come up with something to get into the news again, possibly with something compatible to their PR plan.

The hilarious thing is that your reaction is literally infinitely more overblown than the original, which if you’d read it you’d see was nothing more than “Hey, this seems out of place due to the rest of the character design, but it’s totally fitting where similar is used on these other characters, what do you think?” To which the creative director replied, “We agree.”

Didnt see anything said about the males with their bare chests

If you really gave a crap about such – and aren’t (as I strongly suspect) just aiming for some ridiculous “ah ha! hyprocrisy!” bullshit – then fight your own fucking fights.

Well, I’m sure you could find something on e621 but I was just trying to obliquely make a point about calling (human) women and girls “females” which is a practice that has started to grate on me after years of watching trogs use dehumanizing phrases like “men vs females.”

People that criticize art should take 10 seconds to understand how characters are drawn. Human proportion are well known to artists, they probably had hours going over them in school, the whole 7 heads tall, the head is here, the hips are here, the knees are there, the arms are this long etc. If you are drawing realisticlly you put the waist here, if you are drawing manga you put the waiste up higher and draw the legs longer etc.

This is called stylizing and is why blizzard makes so much god damn money on their games because they know how to do this better than you. They know damn well where tracer’s legs should go if she were being drawn realistically.

I mean damn look at her design, doesn’t it just say ‘speed’ when you look at it? Do you think that was easy to get that way, that it didn’t take that artist hundreds of hours in training to be able to draw a character that fits the requirement of ‘make her look fast?’ while still looking as though she is believable, but stylized?

Man Im cranky today, good thing I’m probably coming in after everyone has left the story.

Is Blizzard gonna fix their games retroactivly maybe ? I mean it’s funny really, Starcraft 2: Nova Stories should be out like tommorow? And you are one google away from oficial Blizzard infamous Nova image with the same pose. Are they gonna fix this charcter and her ridiculous “spandex” trousers as well?

I’d just like to take this opportunity to say how much I respect the RPS community. The comments about this story on some *other* gaming blogs that I won’t name are all like “OMFG femenazis and political correctness are ruining the world! We’re all DOOMED I tell you DOOOOOOOMED!!!” But not here. Here, the comments are civil and based in logic, even the folks who disagree. It’s almost as if the average age of RPS users is greater than twelve years. It’s really amazing, sad as it is that I have to say that.

HA! When do people here take the time to explain things to str8 white dudez?

In truth, maybe about 25% of the discourse here is explaining and arguing. The rest is largely safe mutual agreement, in-group backslapping and guffawing at the ignoramuses that waddle over here, and then moaning about how one has neither the time nor inclination to actually explain anything.

Posts like yours – sighing that these dumb pale heterobros don’t “get it” – probably outnumber good faith discussions around this subject by ten to one.

People here explained some things to me (not today, obv.) and my opinion changed. Well, I like to say “shifted”, ‘cause I never was against women, feminism, equality, Anita, etc., but, having white dick myself, never grasped whole scope of the problem, and what exact things, seemingly inoffensive to me, were significant part of the problem, precisely because they are so prevalent and “the norm”.

No one owns you anything. Here or anywhere. I don’t know how to explain something, especially on the Internet. I don’t have patience to do so. I’m not a teacher. But just look up and read. Even here today. Shut up, read, listen.

I don’t spend that much time. And don’t pretend that you out of the loop: you complaining about people complaining about people complaining about people complaining about people… but, never mind.

Ok, let me try this argument. You think that apologizing is sign of weakness, so it may not work with you, but maybe other people would read and think about it.

Let’s say you like “Overwatch”. You wanna play it. Then the question is: do you want more female players?

(you can change whole premiss from “do you want more female players?” to “do you want more diverse characters?” but then it’s even easier one)

You can say “no”, but let’s assume that you not that of a shitty person and think that everyone deserves to enjoy a good game.

You can say “I don’t care” and that can go both ways (as “yes” and as “no”), so we gonna ignore it.

And, finally, you can say “yes”. ‘Cause, why not, right? But there is not insignificant amount of female players that not gonna play this game precisely because of this pose (there are other problems, but let’s focus on this one). Are they wrong in doing so? Are they right? Is this “just a game” (argument used by Blizzard, actually) and they need to “deal with it”?

And you can’t say “it’s just one pose in just one game” – majority of games have similar problems. Women can’t just go and play something else, as all men can do, if they so offended by this “censorship”.

On one hand you have real scientific evidence that that type of image is harmful for women. And men. There are real people with real feelings, even if this character is virtual in virtual world. There are, let be cynical, too, why not, potential customers for Blizzard. On the other hand? Someone who wants their female characters to be sexy? Someone who thinks that “artistic vision” was bent by “outside pressure”? Shitty trolls? No competition.

It doesn’t matter if you think about games like “just games” or “artistic endeavours”. What matter is real people. Players and developers. What matter is that people who needs to listen, listen. Blizzard is getting better (even if you believe in “outside pressure”, which means you don’t think highly of them – they doing something good for “wrong” reason). Slowly, way too slowly, but still. Ubisoft is getting better. Even EA is releasing remake/sequel (requel? semake?) to “Mirror’s Edge”. We getting there, with or without you.

Apparently, women are constantly “presenting” to me every day. I must be a stud or something.

I disagree with this change. Not because I’m feening for muh buttz or because I think the pose is somehow essential for her character. If Blizzard had already decided against the pose internally, or made their decision based on some kind of wider consensus, that would be perfectly fine. If they had a better pose lined up that had more character, that’s great too.

What’s irritating is the ridiculous mindset behind the original complaint that was essentially validated and rewarded. Tracer is already an attractive young female with skin-tight leggings, but the line is apparently drawn at having a camera pointed at her backside? Should I feel bad that women have backsides? The pose could be “sexual” if you like butts (a widespread problem if there ever was one), but that seems incidental considering a crouch animation could also excite people. And so what.

Jeff Kaplan’s follow-up explanation helps a little, but I can’t help but doubt the sincerity. This pose was fine up until beta and the initial public reason for its removal was “inclusiveness” in order to satisfy one vocal person* who wants us to think of the children.

(*I don’t think any company is truly rolling over for sole individuals. Mollifying these people is an attempt to nip a problem in the bud.)

Any way, everybody can go back to burrowing into their own assholes and pretending the the morlocks are just angry about butt cheeks. :D

Seriously impressed that Blizzard are doing something about that – I assumed they just didn’t care.

Even in Hearthstone, a silly casual card game mostly played by kids, half the female cards are so over sexualised it puts me off using them! (I hate a lot of the artwork on hearthstone though if I’m honest, most is terribly unreadable and a lot looks pretty amateurish (<- I think this is a big part of the sexist shit, teenager fan-art, basically) – doesn't have the style and readability of something like MTG)

I get a similar reaction from the missus that the blizzard community displayed when I do this pose in front of her… Although I guess being a chubby middle aged bearded chap might take away from the aesthetics slightly so I can’t blame her.

So, how long until Tracer and Widowmaker are completely removed from the game? Tight latex body-suits are much more “problematic” then some silly pose no one actually would mind.

It seems that Blizzard found new way to gather attention, and certain “fighters for equality” are happy to fight for a little monetary prize. I mean, really, pose over perfectly tight, almost skin-like suit? That’s either PR move or display of human idiocy and desire to bandwagon on something.

Not a fan of the idea that you change something in your game because of a single complaint. If you need every single person to be happy with every aspect of your game, you may as well scrap the whole thing. Your threshold can’t be that low.

You don’t know that. They’re hardly going to admit to caving into pressure. And I don’t accept the reasoning that the pose doesn’t fit the character. Jeff Kaplan may not see her as a sexy character, but whoever designed her clearly did. Just look at the Tracer media Blizzard have put out.

They have a clear desire to win trust over a certain subset of people, Overwatch rode the inclusiveness bandwagon since it’s first appearance and they are not going to pass up on a good occasion to get into the news again.

I’d just like to remind all the apologists trying to minimise the original comment and Kaplin’s response as being ever, ever so reasonable, that they keep conveniently missing the fact that the commenter accused the pose of being Tracer ‘presenting’, which is clearly fucking ridiculous, and if that’s the kind of off-hand comment that makes Kaplin feel the need to apologise (not just change it, which he could’ve done in a patch update with nary a peep), publicly to this singular person who had 11 pages of people telling them to stop being so over-sensitive, then that’s what people are getting annoyed about. It’s the thin end of a wedge. If the game is supposed to be ‘for everyone’ as Kaplin states, then he’s done a terrible job considering he’s pissed off (or at least diminished his pedigree) far more of his fanbase by responding to this whine than if he’d just stayed out of the thread.

And no, none of that is changed by his damage control follow up. That only compounds the point that he didn’t have to say a damn word if they did indeed already have a replacement animation in the pipeline.

Tl:dr whole thing is a mess that could’ve been avoided if you take Kaplin’s statement at face-value.

What the crap is happening here? I know SJWs have sway in the community of gaming for some reason, but to cut this pose for no other reason than to avoid an indignant shitstorm.
Hello cultural marxism!
Really, what do those people want? For everybody to wear the same unisex clothes like Mao forced the Chinese to wear, so that the fiendish NATURAL sex drive will be surpressed? Because sex should only be for procreation, and not for fun? What’s next? Killing all dolphins and other hominids because they have sex for fun too? Standard burqas for all female characters? Only differing in color so that you can keep the teams apart? Like way back in the day, where the ghosts Pac-Man faced were all the same except for their colors? What the hell is going on with humanity?!

I see why some people are bothered by stuff like this, but I think that it’s not deserving of anymore than eyeroll, from both men and women. There are just far more important things to care about. Sorry!

Sorry that you get upset over non issues. If they hadn’t made a big fuss about it they wouldn’t be further sexualizing women. If Blizzard have an issue why did they make her wear spandex? That pose would be nothing if she was wearing baggy clothes. Absolute nonsense.

While this is almost always true of any issue, it does not mean that people shouldn’t discuss the topic if it is important to them, or petition for reasonable changes to be made. There is something to be said for fighting the battles you can win, after all. It’s not as if someone will provide the world with a definitive ranked list of issues so we can work down from the top.

Sorry guys, but I still don’t think a videogame characters arse is of much merit. This stuff is silly. It’s been silly since I’ve been alive and last time I checked I wasn’t a misogynist or bigot. I’d gladly opt for every male and female videogame character to be forever naked and in a perpetual state of lewd, inappropriate air-humping if it meant I’d stop being bored by stories like this.

To be clear, I’m not slating RPS for covering this. I’m just very tired of this same conversation seemingly repeated forever. It’s just silly. This is blizzard, they always sexualise their characters, and have some of the stupidest, intelligence draining writing in the industry. I think caring about how they dress their cartoons gives them too much credit. That said, if they want an all inclusive, family audience, why dress them in ridiculous, skin tight lycra in the first place?

I think some people are addicted to the drama. Maybe fostering the notion of being under attack counters a fear that no-one actually cares that you exist. Are you making a big deal to silence the secret shame you feel over spending your previous time on perhaps the least productive of all hobbies? I’m not typecasting. I concede that there are probably some people just in it for the comedy.

For fun, I suggest recreating the pose at home. Feet a metre apart, set at right angles, twist that torso….now try sticking your butt out.

honestly, I laughed out loud when I saw the pose in question. Tis true that she looks much healthier from a front view. still right at the top end of realistic high leg to torso length-ratio (along with hip to waist ration, this is the classic male preference. We can see both heavily exaggerated in the other female characters… funnily enough they all wear outfits that heavily emphasise the leg/torso characteristic – whereas in the real world (even fashion) the norm is most definitely for girls with extremely long legs wear jackets/tops that sit below the waist)

anyway, as per usual with Blizzard, it’s all so effing bland and ugly I don’t find it as offensive morally as aesthetically.

I mean, Im not invested in the pose or the game either way, but if Blizzard had just silently replaced the pose and thrown a line in the patch notes that said something like “Replaced placeholder pose for Tracer” Would we even be talking about it? This seems like manufactured controversy to me.

My take: the peek-over-shoulder pose is very mildly seductive and not worth any protest; on the other hand the character design itself, with the spray-painted leggings (hugging the individual buttocks) is out of context in any situation aside from a yoga class maybe, and definitely in a firefight. Keep the victory pose, change that bottom, get a clue from designers at Valve maybe?

Tirades of “Men’s righters”, “feminists”, “SJW”‘s and “Counter-SJW”‘s, obsessing over women and deciding what’s the appropriate or incorrect way to look, dress and act. No matter if it’s real life or fiction.

Not directly related, but it’s a real shame they didn’t go with some of the alternate costumes that are part of their Origins skins. The Slipstream Tracer skin has a much more interesting outfit instead of generic-superhero-spandex-number-47 and the Overgrown Bastion looks absolutely delightful with its grass clumps and flowers likes something rising.

I hate feminism. If i could do anything in this world it would be to get rid of it and everyone who supports it. Feminists are nothing but bored fat ugly women who cant get a man and feel like they should be treated like queens and now they are trying to attack video games. Why not manga? those anime girls have tits and butt that are 10x bigger. Dont get me wrong but im all for equile rights and paycheck shit but u ass hats got rid of the New ” Dead or Alive in the us and now this? Every single one of you can smell my left nut. so come on let those replies flood this post. because il me happy knowing im angering u viruses